Recently I've posted on the delightful terror of "purgation" and "illumination" (see below), which are the first two of the classical "ways" of spiritual formation.
I repeat this only because it is so important... Steve and I have argued that we should try to move beyond a view of this transformation as a linear process of steps through which the individal soul moves one at a time. In our TS book (see left sidebar) we argue for a model that emphasizes an ongoing intensification of redemptive relations in embodied community.
The term "union" tends to freak out Christians in the west, especially evangelicals, because it sounds like we become divine or are melted into the divine substance. But what if we get past the language of "substances" and talk about a "relational" union? Of course, understanding this is facilitated by the philosophical turn to relationality, suggesting a metaphysics in which relations are real and constitutive for our coming-to-be.
I have found that it helps to talk about "intimacy" instead of "union," at least to get started. Notice that intimacy is scary too. We fear being too intimate because the other may take advantage, crushing or abandoning us. So we really fear any intimacy that involves "union," for how can I be my "self" in such a union? But I want to be united, to be intimate, so it is equally scary if you push my "self" away. We are caught in this tension.
Purgation can awaken in us a fresh awareness of the way in which our relations to others are crushing or alienating, increasing our desire for these relations to be transformed, which requires an illumination of the structures of intentionality that shape our lives, but which we normally do not see.
The longing for intimacy with the other is saturated by fear and desire. Embracing this delightful terror is part of the transformation toward "union."
Intimacy (or union) with God and with our neighbors is reciprocally mediated. In other words, the welcoming presence of God is mediated to me through the faces of those around me who show me grace, providing space and time for me to develop my capacity for intimacy. As I come to find my "self" primarily constituted by THIS absolute relation, i.e., by the infinite presence of an eternal love that does not threaten to crush or abandon me (like finite things do), then I am able to face others in a way that invites them toward intimacy, because I no longer have to hide my "self" out of fear of these finite faces. This process takes space and time... and transforms them.
This has radical implications for ecclesiology, for the way in which the church understands its participation in God's gracious action in the world.
1. What practical implications might this way of thinking about (and experiencing) salvation have for Christian communities; e.g., preaching, teaching, counseling, missions, evangelism?
2. In what kinds of concrete ways can we face others, our selves, and God that might facilitate the transformation of our intimate relations?
_______________________
In pastoral ways with women who have been emotionally abused, I use a book entitled Don't Forgive Too Soon by the Linns. It helps because the book teaches readers to use a forgiveness process that invites one to recognize the hurts, tend to them in relation with the God who loves them and invites them to respond using a non-violent resistence method. The entire process is creative in that even in the non-violent resistence the person is invited to engage with God around a creative response that will help the other see the hurting ways of the perpetrator and yet maintain their own humanity. It also helps to use the scripture passage from Matthew 15:22-29 as a way of experiencing the face of Jesus. The Caananite woman calls out to Jesus and at first he seems to ignore her but she continues and he hears and grants her request. Then Jesus raises her as an example for having great faith. His face is that of approval, pride in her courage and tenacity. This helps because many times a woman experiences significant disapproval for speaking up. The approving face of Jesus is profound. This is how I see your thoughts work out in everyday life.
I read the site often, but may not comment much.
Faith
Posted by: Faith Totushek | 27 February 2007 at 18:02
Hi Faith,
It's so nice to hear from you, and thanks for speaking up!
Today in class we talked about this very thing... how our journeys toward transformation may be very different, and many men need to begin with repentance for pride, while many women need to be healed of wounds...
It all works toward breaking the cycle of violence so that we can be reconciled, united, at-one with God and one another.
LeRon
Posted by: LeRon Shults | 27 February 2007 at 18:25
LeRon,
I so respect your contribution in this area. Your work in TS is really helpful. I agree with you on the intimacy language even though we have to walk through what that means.
From a practical standpoint, it means walking through relationships from an relational orientation, rather than formualic or modern frameworks. I suggest that means in counseling, evangelism, etc. relationship is just as important as our goal.
Indeed, as Deborah van Duesen Hunsinger pointed out, fellowship is not a means to an end, but an end in an of itself.
Posted by: Dan Brennan | 27 February 2007 at 19:17
LeRon- Great post. I think your "recovery" of purgation, illumination, and union are important contributions to the topic of Christian spirituality in the early 21st C. My hunch is that many people don't quite know what to do with the "spiritual transformation" process and thus on this topic I think you have many “readers” but also many who are hesitant to post.
Yesterday I was in a conversation with an MDiv student regarding "stages of spiritual formation." During a guest lecturing gig here at Iliff I mentioned Janet Hagberg & Robert Guelich’s model of spiritual formation in "The Critical Journey" (they outline six stages of spiritual formation):
1. the recognition of God,
2. the life of discipleship,
3. the productive life,
4. the journey inward,
-the wall-
5. the journey outward,
6. the life of love.
In my discussion with the class I mentioned that I cannot name a single established church in America that really knows what to do with people in stages 4-6, which I find ironic given that (according to the authors) this is the goal of the spiritual journey.
In my experience, and I would love to hear others comment on this, when a person grows past stage three the American church really has no idea what to do with them. If you are not familiar with the Critical Journey, stage four is a period of intense personal struggling, I personally think it is where people hit purgation for the first time and a rather uncomfortable process begins.
Hagberg writes: “At this stage (four), we face an abrupt change to a mode of questioning, exploring, falling apart, doubting, dancing around the real issues, sinking in uncertainty, and indulging in a self-centeredness. We often look hopeless to those around us.” (93)
I have found that the established church has a very difficult time dealing with this particular stage of the journey and this is one of the spots where I think people “fall of the wagon” with regards to attending and participating in their local church, and for good reason. As I mentioned above, I think stage four is where people begin to hit the mystical stage of spiritual development and thus the purgation-illumination-union paradigm becomes the project for them; or at least that is how it has functioned in my life and the lives of those in community around me.
I am very interested to hear how the p-i-u process has functioned for people within their local church contexts. Have people had good or bad experiences? Does any church really know how to deal with this?
Posted by: David Worley | 28 February 2007 at 01:50
In relation to this, the way in which we teach/preach becomes critical. One of the principles I practice in my preaching is granting the time and space for the Spirit to move as He chooses. I avoid giving the impression to people that there is a certain time or way in which a response is needed. I love how Jesus keeps saying, "come and see" in the opening chapters of John. It seems it was important to the scripture writers to present Jesus with an opening, welcoming posture. He keeps inviting without pressuring. That doesn't mean the urgency of things isn't expressed, but he offers respect to people and where a person is at on the journey.
When I started pastoring here 3 1/2 years ago, I gave up the need to force the issue. Instead, by extending time and space, I've been able to witness the impossible. This was quite different from my experiences earlier in life where you would hear the typical, "this may be your last opportunity" or "if you don't come now you probably never will." Again, Jesus recognized the signficance of what he was saying and the importance of response, but he always seemed to draw rather than push. Big difference.
This seems particuarly important in the area of union. I counsel people to be wary and cautious when confronted with people who are pushy. When one is confronted with a force trying to established some sort of conformity, the defensive mechanisms rightly come up. So why would we practice that within the Christian community? It seems to me that one of the more effective methods to encourage people towards union with God and his people is simply to extend the invitation and remain faithful in the relation. That way, the fear of being crushed is mitigated by the grace extended and faithfulness demonstrated.
Posted by: Brian W | 28 February 2007 at 03:41
Brian- I loved the post and agree with the open and not pushy standpoint. Regarding my prior comments, how would you deal with the p-i-u paradigm for those in your congregation who are wanting it.
Posted by: David Worley | 28 February 2007 at 13:57
"The longing for intimacy with the other is saturated by fear and desire. Embracing this delightful terror is part of the transformation toward 'union.'"
LeRon or anybody,
I had an interesting conversation with a good friend of mine yesterday that seemed to pertain to this very issue. We were discussing human sexuality as a necessary(?) means of transcendence and union with others and the Other. Specifically our conversation centered on homosexual relationships and whether it was possible for the church to say something to the effect of “its alright to be ‘gay,’ but just don’t have sex.”
LeRon, what intrigues me most about your post is the idea of directionality or the “toward(ness)” of our union. In some ways it seems that during this phase of our evolutionary development sexuality is necessary for our understanding of union with others and the ultimate Other. Here I am thinking about how “women,” for instance, was one of the first mediums by which humanity tried to connect with the gods and the spiritual realm (temple prostitutes, fertility statues, etc.). However, if Jesus defined humanity and covenanted relationality, how do we justify the basic(ness) of sexuality when it comes to union with God and others? Also, if sexuality is no longer necessary(?) for helping humanity to understand transcendence, what is its place in the “toward(ness) of Union for the Christian tradition?
I would be especially interested to hear peoples thoughts in regard to homosexuals and their right(?) to sexuality in covenanted relationships.
dan
Posted by: Daniel Eller | 28 February 2007 at 15:31
Yes, please give advice! I'm about to "fall off the wagon," David. I've hit the wall and come through to begin stages 5 and 6. Yes, it is a mystic stage of loving Jesus and experiencing God's permeating presence. But when I go to church and gather with the members of my faith community, I'm stifled by pressure to conform to an understanding of God that doesn't fit the way I read Scripture and experience God now.
The church now seems to be a place to celebrate fear of Satan, a place to be "rescued" from hell and from personal immorality, a place where we go to commiserate while we wait to be raptured from this dark world.
Where is the light of the kingdom and the full life in Christ in that?
Posted by: Beyond Words | 28 February 2007 at 16:17
Dan,
Great questions, Dan. I'm not sure I agree with part of your premise, though. You say, "In some ways it seems that during this phase of our evolutionary development sexuality is necessary for our understanding of union with others and the ultimate Other." I'm not sure this is the case. I think many would agree that sexuality is an enormously powerful and transformative experience, but is it really necessary?
I think of Paul's fairly clear posturing of chastity for himself and others. It seems that if the experience/practice of sexual practices were necessary for union with God, Paul was missing out on more than he thought and was encouraging others to miss out on further intensification with God, too. I know Paul had particular eschatological views that weren't quite correct when he encouraged such practices, but still, I have hard time seeing Paul discouraging something that is necessary for further transformation. I don't know, I'm kind of thinking out loud.
David,
In relation to purgation, one of the best things a Christian community can do is help people see that the American values of convenience, comfort and ease are not actually virtuous. American Christians think they are; they think they are signs of blessing. I try to help people see that Christ was completely uninterested in providing convenience, comfort or ease; in fact, he seemed to say that if we want to be of help to others, we have to forsake these kinds of values. This is hard for American Christians to see or accept; their faith is tightly bound to these values. But as soon as people recognize and say, "its ok for this to be painful" "its ok for me to feel lost" they won't flee the process of purgation. I feel its part of my job to be present in those times. While they feel unsure about so much, there is at least one thing they are sure of... their pastor's presence.
Posted by: Brian W | 28 February 2007 at 17:40
Brian, David and "Beyond,"
Thanks for being so vulnerable and honest on your posts. This really is a difficult topic and even more difficult task.
I completely agree that inviting should be our default mode, although of course we should also discern when it is time to push... which can be hard on a blog! Sometimes I'm not sure if the more defensive posters are serious. I know of one person who goes around on blogs taking a hyper-conservative position in order to be ironic.
But I digress... well, not really... because the point is that discernment in each context and community is key.
I think it would be wonderful if a community could set up structures or exercises or habits or rituals that would facilitate the interaction between people at different stages of intensification.
One huge barrier.. and I hate to bring this up... is ordination and professional salaries. Unfortunately a pastor who tried to do such transformative work would be threatened with losing her job because often those who are in the power structures and make such decisions in an ecclesiastical setting are not those who have embraced the delightful terror of purgation... again, this is based on some of my own experiences, and I'm not counselign the disolution of church offices and urging pastors to resign. No, just point out the political dimensions of the task we are all exploring.
The other extreme is true as well. If we have no structures at all, no responsibility, etc., then transfomration is unlikely to occur in that setting either.
In TS, Steve and I use the metaphor of a crucible, which provides space and holds together the purging process... need heat and light but also some (relatively open) structure taht "contains" the process without constraining.
I am really grateful to all of you for posting, because although we are not really a "church," your participation in the conversation has facilitated my own purgation and illumination, and hopefully will enhance my capacity for union as well! ;)
Dan,
... the delightful terror of discussing homosexuality! ;)
I do have opinions on the role of sexuality in spiritual transformation and on homosexuality... heterosexuality too, actually...
I'm not going to address them right now, because I know that such a conversation will take a lot of energy and discernment, and availabiltiy for responses to anxiety.
But I promise when I have time to devote to it, I will post on this topic.
Thanks both for asking the really tough questions and for being patient with me as I try to carve out time to reflect on them and articulate a response that will itself facilitate transformative conversation.
LeRon
Posted by: LeRon | 28 February 2007 at 17:54
Hey LeRon,
When you do decide to embrace the delightful terror of "transforming sexuality," and the potential firestorm that will ensue, I wonder if you would also discuss some of the differences that you've noticed between "US" evangelicalism and Norwegian evangelicalism’s viewpoints on this issue... because it seems as though Norway has made more ground on "equality" issues, and it would be interesting to hear if this creates different/helpful new ways of framing the issue itself...
… I’m really starting to wonder if I’m somehow the lived equivalent of Eminem’s theory/lyrics that “everybody needs a little controversy.” ;)
dan
Posted by: Daniel Eller | 28 February 2007 at 19:26
Hey Brian,
For the purpose of clarification... I think that you are raising the necessary question, which is why I mention Jesus as the picture of absolute humanity. However, it does seem as though sex is necessary for our species survival, and not just for our bodily survival. For instance, in some of the higher primates it has been shown that sex is used/needed for stress/anxiety release, and to establish family ties, and for the unifying of differing clans. Sex seems to be necessary(?) for a majority of the population to participate in, so that stability for the symbolic minority can be maintained…. by symbolic minority I mean people like Paul, Jesus, and others who have been given a gift of grace for celibacy. It kind of seems to me that we, as a whole, are complex spiritual beings that do seem to require sex and not just for procreation…
That being said, I am more interested in raising the question than giving my answer at this point…
dan
Posted by: Daniel Eller | 28 February 2007 at 20:14
Leron,
Interesting conversation.
Several thought threads give me pause. However, union with Christ is not one of them. I understand union with Christ to be a function of membership in the Body of Christ. Joining a church is a lot like joining a union. Nothing mystical is going on.
The language and terms in use here are problematic. For instance, the problem I have with "intimacy" is the dictionary, which defines it as "2. A usually secretive or illicit sexual relationship." If you mean the "friendship" aspects of intimacy, why not call it "friendship?" Why not use biblical terminology? Scripture doesn't use the term "intimacy" in the ways suggested here. Thus, a red flag is on the field.
"Purgation." Again, the meaning of the word is problematic: "1. Purging the body by the use of a cathartic to stimulate evacuation of the bowels, 2. A ceremonial cleansing from defilement or uncleanness by the performance of appropriate rites, 3. The act of clearing yourself (or another) from some stigma or charge." I understand that God is the purgator and His people are the pergatees. However, I will have some difficulty if you want to purge me, or even if you want to be in the bathroom with me while I'm being purged by the Lord. Purging (physically or spiritually) is an intensely personal process. In addition, it is not a function of a ceremony. And, the biblical word for getting clear of some stigma or charge is "justification." Purgation is an idea that belongs in Greek bath houses or on Hindu retreats -- and there is a place for it in the traditions of Christian mysticism, which I would put in the same category. Perhaps you are not using words as the dictionary defines them. If not, I highly recommend it.
You said, "God is mediated to me through the faces of those around me who show me grace." How do you reconcile this with Paul's comment in 1 Timothy 2:5, that "there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus..." I understand that people "see" God through His people. However, there is an important difference between mediation and representation. I can represent Jesus to someone as in "be a representative of Jesus" as an ordinary believer. But I do not mediate God or His presence or His grace to another. That's the function of Jesus Christ. Again, the whole idea of mediation is tied to reconciliation. It is not the grace in the faces of other believers that is critical, it is the grace of God. To miss this is to deny the validity of the Reformation.
Are you suggesting that the "infinite presence of an eternal love (God's love) ... does not threaten to crush or abandon" people? This would be true of repentant and reconciled sinners, but not of unrepentant, unreconciled sinners. It sounds like you may have abandoned the doctrine of hell. Oh, I know it is not polite to talk about hell, but Jesus did. And so must Christians.
You ask, "2. In what kinds of concrete ways can we face others, our selves, and God that might facilitate the transformation of our intimate relations?" What is the end product of this transformation of our intimate relations? You do mean sex when you speak of intimate relations, don't you? If not, what exactly do you mean?
That is exactly what Daniel thought you meant when he shared that he and a friend had been "discussing human sexuality as a necessary(?) means of transcendence and union with others and the Other." Let me see if I have this right: sex could be a necessary means of spiritual growth -- specifically that conversation centered on homosexual relationships. Is it being suggested here that active homosexuality should not only be tolerated by God, but that it may be a necessary means of spiritual maturity? Give me a break!
Is this what the emergent church is about -- emerging from the closet?
Posted by: Phillip Ross | 28 February 2007 at 20:38
Hey phillip,
when you said:
"You do mean sex when you speak of intimate relations, don't you? If not, what exactly do you mean?...
That is exactly what Daniel thought you meant when he shared that he and a friend had been "discussing human sexuality as a necessary(?) means of transcendence and union with others and the Other."
you kind of got me wrong... well, not kind of... because i was only trying to say that sexuality is one way we seek intimacy in relationships... i would never say that it is the "only" way... also, if you note the "(?)" you will see that I was only raising an aside-question regarding sex's place in our union with God and others...
next time you decide to speak for me, you might first want to speak with me... just a thought.
dan
Posted by: Daniel Eller | 28 February 2007 at 20:54
Phillip- As a frequent reader and contributor to the "community" that is LeRon's blog may I ask a couple things of you.
#1: Will you please actually read the whole of the discussion before you enlighten us with you comments. LeRon, very clearly I think, spoke of the reality that the p-i-u theme is something that he is retrieving and building from in the historical Christian tradition. Thus, your contemporary dictionary definitions are technically irrelevant and miss the point of the discussion.
#2. Will you please ratchet back your tone and rhetoric. I personally have no problem that you don't agree with LeRon but at least be respectful with your questions and if they are not true questions (which I have a hunch they are not) then have the honesty to present them as statements. A good example of “respectful disagreement” was John Stackhouse’s comments that you can find in the Cultural Anthropology strand in the February archives.
#3. I personally would appreciate it if you would respect the rest of us readers enough to realize the significance of this post for our own searching and formation. Bursting into the conversation like this is kind of like running into a church service and shouting during the sermon. It is disrespectful.
Perhaps my three requests here are a misreading of your post and you are intending to ask honest questions without obvious contempt. If so I apologize for misinterpreting you. If your intent is more along the lines of what I am implying please be more aware of the significant number of people who really do read and care for this blog. For some of us this blog is sacred space where we intend to process our theology and faith and I hope that you respect that.
With sincere love…
Posted by: David Worley | 28 February 2007 at 21:05
Well said David!
And Phillip, I would also add that if you are going to flame LeRon or anyone else on this blog, you should at least be brave enough to include your email address. You know who we are, and how to contact us (if you actually have any sincere interest in exploring these issues). You apparently think its important to stand up for what you believe. Fair enough. So why the "hit and run"?
LeRon, I am afriad it is inevitable that you will be misunderstood, again and again. I know you are thick skinned, but try not to get discouraged nevertheless. There are many people who get what you are trying to do, who don't think you are a new-ager or an Hegelian wolf in sheep's clothing. Stand tall (or at least as tall as you can!).
Ken
Posted by: Ken Reynhout | 01 March 2007 at 02:59
Hello Everyone,
This is one of the strange things about living in a different time zone... I wake up, get to work, and discover I'm way behind in the conversation, and many of you won't read this for another 8 hours or so.
The wonderful thing about this is I feel like Dan, David, Sara and Ken have already responded sufficiently!
Let me just affirm that I too have often felt something sacred about the experience of reading your responses and comments.
And, yes, Philip misunderstands the conversation at every point.
And it is distracting and annoying to allow such voices to break into the dialogue.
Yet, I have also experienced, especially in classroom settings, that if I let such voices express themselves it becomes clearer to many others on the boundary of intellectual transformation precisely what is at stake. By hearing the mis-interpretation, they are awakened to how their own use of categories is keeping them from learning.
So at some point we will need to decide if this is like a "class" or like a "chat room" or something else entirely.
In the last month or so, the number of hits on the blog has shot up to around 800 per day. Now, of course about 700 of those are me checking the blog to see if anyone else is checking the blog! ;)
This means lots of people are listening in, something like the quiet members of a seminar course.
A private chat area would be awesome too, but at this point (I'm very open to changing my mind) I feel like it is worth absorbing the posts from those who are not willing (or interested) in engaging in these issues at the level we are hoping to facilitate.
I have tried to suggest in my responses to comments (and in the About page) that if a person is critical (and I welcome criticism) of what I am doing, they should give a page number from one of my books and explain why they believe this text confirms their interpretation. This is of course what those of you in doctoral seminars are used to.
So, one option is for me simply to delete posts that do not follow these guidelines in the "About" page.
Or we could continue to press forward as things are.
I'm open. What do you think?
LeRon
Posted by: LeRon | 01 March 2007 at 08:38
LeRon- At this point I think we should continue on as we have been. I have actually learned a lot by reading your interactions with unhelpful posts and I think people who would be inclined to break into the discussion without knowing what they are talking about are generally dissuaded rapidly by you and the community which tends to be self policing.
Posted by: David Worley | 01 March 2007 at 15:04
Hi everyone, I am not sure if I am off but, when i think about union with God I think about the word sharing. In intercession for someone one can experience a sharing with God and a sharing with the one for whom one is praying. It is as if I am praying and someone else, Jesus, is praying with me and we are identifying with and sharing compassion for another. I don't see it as sexual at this point. But it is a deep sharing of heart, love for someone else and a shared desire for their wholeness/healing/connection with God. It is like a river that flows among us, connecting us in a sharing. Faith
Posted by: Faith Totushek | 01 March 2007 at 15:13
I am also thinking about faces and seeing faces. the prophet said Israel was ever seeing but not seeing, ever hearing but not hearing. It is possible to see another's face but not really see it because we see through the veil of our life experiences, beliefs, socializations etc. It is possible to look at the face and see inaccurately. It is also possible to see God and who God is through the veil of our own life experiences, beliefs, etc. And so too our own faces as seen by ourselves. I am thinking about what it would be like to pray about seeing better the faces of others and the face of God--and even my own face. How might just that kind of better sight transform our communities. When I see through my veils, it affects how I interpret God, life, others.
Posted by: Faith Totushek | 01 March 2007 at 16:08
Wow...what an interesting and intense set of interactions. I am snow bound in Northern Minnesota today, so I finally have a chance to join the conversation.
I would like to interact with Phillip's post on a couple of points. First, just an observation that if you click on his name it takes you to his blog site. So the concern about not posting his e-mail address is really a non-issue.
Second, Phillip wrote "I understand union with Christ to be a function of membership in the Body of Christ. Joining a church is a lot like joining a union. Nothing mystical is going on." I have encountered this understanding of both union with Jesus as well as church membership, and I think that it is lacking for a couple of reasons. First, being united with Jesus appears to me to be primarily brought about by the presence of the Spirit of Christ at work in me. As the Spirit unites me with Jesus, Jesus says that he and Father would also be present in me. This uniting happens in the context of others who are also experiencing the transforming presence of the Spirit in their lives. Together, being present to each other as the Spirit is present to us, we reflect the life and ways of God. All of this happens without joining the labor union that is our current organizational church structure.
The difficulty that I face in our church(es) is that this union membership card approach to being a part of the Body of Christ leads one to an in/out framework. Those who have joined and pay their dues are in the 'in' group, while those who have not are put into the 'out' category. Our difficulty in relating across this divide hinders our union with Christ, the Father, and Spirit (I believe) because the context for this uniting is broken into a labor union mentality. And as the pastor, I am viewed as management who is to be looked upon with suspicion.
Third, I do resonate with some of Phillip's concerns regarding the interplay between transformation and sex. I recall a discussion in one of my classes in seminary where some were quite convinced that sex was an act of worship. I want to agree that sex is good in the context of intimacy, connectedness, and commitment (as seen in the creation story), but the cultural context of the NT as well as the context of my culture in the U.S. makes me quite hesitant to make these kinds of statements. Sex is an act of worship, and it is put on display every evening on my TV. The use of sex in worship to the gods points away from the goodness of sex to a utilitarian function of achieving a momentary ecstatic feeling. In so doing, are we not using each other and subjectifying female or male to an object for my use? Doesn't this lead away from intimacy, connectedness, and commitment? Doesn't this work against union with the Spirit of Christ in the context of a new creation community of love?
Posted by: Jeff Hyatt | 01 March 2007 at 18:11
Hi Jeff,
Good points. I especially like the point you make about the tendency to emphasize us versus them in our churches, which of course supports divisiveness rather than "union" (of any kind).
About sex... please note that I have not actually said anything about sex and transformation yet... but, given the interest in the theme, I may need to post something on it sooner than I promised Dan!
LeRon
Posted by: LeRon | 01 March 2007 at 21:13
Me and my big mouth...
Sorry LeRon, but apparently thats what happens when you grow up in a house where no subject is taboo, especially sex:)
...I think Freud would have a hay-day with my childhood, and my subsequent theologizing.
dan
Posted by: Daniel Eller | 01 March 2007 at 21:21
Yes, LeRon, I do realize that you haven't written anything on this blog regarding sex and transformation. I was simply interacting with Phillip's comments (agreeing where I can agree) regarding Dan's reference to the topic of sexuality. Sorry...I'll stay more focused on the chosen topic.
Posted by: Jeff Hyatt | 02 March 2007 at 00:09
Dan and Jeff,
No need at all for apologies... its just that this issue is SO important, and so touchy, and I know it will lead to lots of discussion, so I want to wait til I have a little more time.
Should be fun once we get started!
LeRon
Posted by: LeRon | 02 March 2007 at 08:22